tv [untitled] April 13, 2014 8:30am-9:01am PDT
came with other co-sponsors including supervisor mar. and receiving to commissioner antonini's comments i believe the affordable is between 90 and one hundred percent a m i i don't believe that rent control is included. with that, that's it >> thank you. >> good afternoon board of appeals last night was a bit of a did you see i didn't (laughter) >> had 5 cases on the agenda 4 of them maybe a note for the planning commission. 11050 van ness street was back at the board of appeals briefly it's a 12 unit building on van ness street ground floor retail
and the sequa analysis and determination 0 for that project as appealed to the planning commission and the board of supervisors and also in conjunction request was founded through the court that failed recently. the large project authorization i'm sorry skipped one. the building permit was appealed to the board of appeals and overwhelming they took the fifth floor off then came back can be later and revised that determination to two setbacks of the fifth floor 10 feet on the front and rear. and there were two separate rehearing requests one from the project sponsor and one from liberate hill appellants. the mark theatre that was the other appellant didn't request another hearing and thought about appealing the request
after some testimony the board denied both hearing requests so at least at the board of appeals that project is done. the next item 480 katrero avenue this is the one that katrero and mayor possess the sequa was appealed to the planning commission and board of supervisors and the sprushlth was with an an appeal to the building permit the board of appeals already heard the appeal last year and depend that appeal and denied the appeal of the building on a 4 to zero vote and the next project 330 after the permit that didn't come from the planning commission but is of interest it's a project from the
rec and park department. specifically with the bathroom on the site and there was a series of determinations and the permit was issued it was appealed it was a demolition permit part of the 2008 bond program to upgrade the bathroom program and the permit was to demolish the current bathroom that was 88 compliant. there was some work done to the exterior of the building and the permit was appealed and a new determination was made that based on the current state after an h e.r. was done the tennis site was a historic resource but the building itself no longer was. the board of appeals seemed to
favor an outcome leaning towards rehabilitating the existing building go as opposed to tearing it down for a modern structure they continued the item for 90 days and ask do the rec and park department to further look at that and to continue to work with the community because there was some community preference for a rebuilding and smaller item 2529 post street was a variance in 2013 for the demolition and rebuild of restairs and decks that requested under e grossing ingress it was approved and that variance was appealed and the board of appeals denied it the
building was the art it came to this commission in 2013, the dr didn't approve that it was an appeal 0 of the building permit and after some discussion it was denied. that was a long meeting >> thank you. commissioner sugaya >> you should start earlier. on valencia street do you remember the number of units >> the original most removed the fifth floor and the revised motion, you know, restored a portion of the fifth floor and kept the same minimum of unit which is 12 so basically, their
required to set it back in the front and rear without loss of revenues. >> so that means the affordable unit is triggered still i mean reinstated. >> yes. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move stone the general public comment commission. on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction. poovk. commission will be afforded when. the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may members of the public may address the commission up to 3 minutes >> closed. general public comment is closed. . commissioners, that places you under item 9 at the 3571
sacramento street request for authorization. >> need one minute here per commissioners, i want to introduce you to another staff member she is a long term resident and graduated up state she's a former interim with the public works and worked for the city of alameda she's happy to be back in san francisco. >> wonderful thank you. >> the project i'm sorry good afternoon commissioner president wu and members of the commission. the project before you today is located on the 3571 sacramento street. this is part of the sacramento neighborhood are commercial district that requires a
conditional use authorization permit for a hair salon. the ground floor commercial space is currently vacant and the former use was a retail store. a renovation plan will install four washing sinks and no exterior changes are proposed. this will be open daily from 7:00 a.m. actually 9:00 p.m. and expect to have 75 customers per day >> that's not for you. >> the department has received one phone call about the concern for the parking need for the salon retail use and has a general concern for lack of parking in the neighborhood duce due to over building in the site
and zoning requirements don't require parking to be required the departments recommendation is to approve the project. that concludes my presentation. the i'm sorry the applicant and the salon owners are here today and i'll be available for questions >> project sponsor would you like to make a presentation. okay. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. oh. commissioner sugaya was that - >> yeah, i'll move to approve with conditions. >> second. >> commissioners, that places you under commissioner antonini. commissioner borden >> commissioner hillis. commissioner moore.
commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you your your receive calendar on market street units 22a and b the mandatory discretionary review. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and others i'm with the staff the item is for mandatory discretionary review at the a merging on market street. the project sponsor will merger two units resulting in one unit be reduced. the unit proposed for merging are a one bedroom and bath condo. the smaller unit was appraised at the 3 point millions plus and
the larger unit at 8, $4 million. the appraise above the 4. million are demonstratively over financially not demonstratively unaffordable and subtract to subject review it is defined as a unit greater than 80 percent of the land values a of single families in san francisco as determined by the an appraisal made within 6 months to merge it states that the planning commission may increase the 10 percent of the unit if in the adjust is needed to conserve affordable housing.
due to recent changes in the planning code effecting mergers i'm going to give you background this was filed on october 16, 2013, and reviewed against the planning code it explicit quality under the planning code because it didn't meet the majority of criteria and it was not demonstratively unaffordable. at the time the smaller unit was appraised and it qualified. the project sponsor choose to wait 6 months for new appraisals and the department adjusted the threshold. under the cladding administrative review it is only available for affordable
housing. the mayors derivative and the policy changes that result in the removal or loss of a building unit be brought before the planning commission. regardless of whether the unit are proposed for chances. today, the department has received no containments. we recommend disapproval it's under developed under the entitlements and the subject lot is zoned c-3 r and the project was entitled with one hundred and 42 condominium units in 2001 and since the 3 dwelling mergers have been resulted in the existing one hundred and 39 united mixed use building that
will result in a loss in a building that's primary inassessable or demonstratively unaffordable. it should be with the code to obtain legal housing unit. that concludes my presentation i'm happy to a answer questions >> thank you. project sponsor >> hello, i'm paul. along with my business pattern we're working with the architects that owns the two units and i want to thank the planning commission for hearing our proposal and in particular mr. burns.
and as you've heard from ms. burns the department is recommending the proposed merger be disapproved failing below the financially or demonstratively unaffordable houses and it's not in keeping with the executive derivative so i think i want to speak to the criteria and to the recently adapted threshold of $1 million plus. first, the $1.5 million is appraised of single-family home, however, it's board and it's not clear to us as well as to our clients how the single-family residents is not defined it's
compared to not an apples to apples comparison as well as to the condo i'm wondering in consideration is giving to the hoa fees and the hoa fees are over $1,700 a month and on top of mortgage so a number of bathrooms and per skweer costs and a metric go as well as understanding of the hearing did planning commission has debated or questioned the dignifies of a single-family residence so the threshold of 3.2 it is a stretch to say a one before the accident happened condo anothers 5 million is demonstratively
affordable etc. as well the owners particularly interested in the inxhifbltcy among the appraisal and his property tax bill i have a copy of that if you want to see he's been tacked for his property at the 1 million 8 hundred thousand and that's above the threshold it is the average around 1.5 million it's confusing. i think we'd like some clarity on that. speaking of the unit itself it is housed in the four season residents that's a project that was conceived and approved the san francisco nationals and services the hoa intent. again, it is a one bedroom
35er789 with a small square footage providing that as affordable is a stretch. the merger from the housing stock but merging it into a single unit creates a ding unit for a family of 4 with that so it adds to the housing stock in this particular building. so the planning department's report there's been three approvals in the tower and those mergers involve the unaccessible unit so when the tlerltdz is meeting met it makes the thoughtful and erotic threshold and the realties of the unit. regarding the executive derivative i want to say that
this is also, you know, you guys have seen this for several years he's lived there and it's never been available for rental or displacing any tenants it's reducing the number of bedrooms and that's the last point we did originally submit in the fall of 2013 and elected two resubmits and in that time the thresholds has changed and it's truly by a matter of weeks we had the appraisal february 13th and the new threshold was adapted in march >> thank you sir, your time is up. >> okay is there any public comment on this item seeing
none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden >> i know this is obviously not on affordable unit but looking the hoa it sounds like the hoa are $1,700 a month is an rent for an apartment obviously it's not affordable i understand the conformity of the zoning issue but there's no way to rectify that situation in either direction and when a donation was made to build it back in the day but if there's a way to look at those cases this was clearly built as a luxury condo unit it's not subject to rent control i don't know if people want to spend a lot of money on those unite i'll move
to approve. second >> or not take dr approval. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i was a little bit curious from the project sponsor did you say that the taxed that are being paid on that unit are based on $1.5 million. >> they're based on $1.500 as of 2013. >> so it was accessed at a particular time but - >> yeah. 4 hundred or 5 hundred thousands. i agree with the motion and it is sort equal to what that amount is in support of the motion it satisfies four or the 6 criteria and one doesn't apply
but were the standards of the motion to measure it doesn't apply the standard to apply to it when is a hypothesis situation the same number of bedrooms and somewhat repetitive when that talks about the same number of bedrooms it's a reasonable request >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. what year was that appraisal is that 2013. >> please come to the podium. >> yeah. by the assessors office. >> it's dated june of 2013. >> so it's a current tax bill so he's appraising those say at 2 thousand a square foot.
>> thank you. commissioner hillis >> just a clarification on the appraisal amount the tax bill is based on what you bought it for so somebody bought it for $1.5 million so it's ramped up and i'll agree with the speakers decision on this $1,700 will support $400,000 so we're going to get $2 million for our costs i'm in support. >> commissioner moore. >> i feel my case hand caught in the door. just a few weeks ago i asked for metrics by which we can also address the dwelling unit mergers as looking at the
preserving housing stock including within the range of definition of affordable housing for people who already live there and want to buy something. we asked the department to do so the fact that the numbers are being questioned is basically, not in my purview i have to building that the department is doing what we asked them to do to found numbers to gage the perimeters for approval or denial i believe what's been presented to me, i'm taking the information as being thoughtfully prepared but advised with the appropriate people to sit here and deny something to which i wanted metrics. as to whether i can question the
numbers of how they're together but nate's that's not what i - i am using the tools that were given to me that's been questioned by the other. the argument is clear and simple it can't be persuade by the mayors housing derivative so i can't support of the merger >> commissioner antonini. >> well, i think the derivative merely says that all mergers should come before the commission but it doesn't say i can't approve it, it's up for dr we have discretion and we can exercise our discretion i still
support the motion. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. to staff on the $1.5 million is that can we get into a little bit of how that is arrived at. is it truly based on single-family housing in the city that's a weird kind of baseline to use >> sure corey for staff i can touch on that. the most current circulations or the code says it should be the 80th per actually including the land values. the updated figure was replicated and simple based on data that was available in most recent years the sales data filtered to take out market
tractions for single families regardless of the underlying zoning and the 80 per actually is the 1.06 is derived from that number is used solely to determine if we can approve that administratively not as a criteria that's considered for the merger itself that's a number to determine in the unit is demonstratively not affordable that we deem it affordable in any way it was simply a bar it is so unaffordable we can approve that >> it's an aggregate figure it take into account the two bedroom or whenever there's
you're not drill down into different types of single family and to follow up single families don't or does it include the condominium units. >> no, it and and the second question question it's overall the single families and the code is written in such a way that the figure is for the review determination whether it's single families or condominiums being merged. >> most of the mergers it seems like to be using a figure based on a totally different housing type, you know, is an issue i think this needs to be looked
at. i don't know whether or not we looked at the comparable one bedroom unit, you know, condominium units whether the price is lower or higher i suspect higher >> it's one of the things on the list to review the whole housing passage with the mayor's office to see if it needs changing. >> that's helpful. although the issue that's been raised by this isn't up for discussion we have a discussion scheduled for may 15 to talk about what should be administratively reviewed so we'll not be talking about the one $.5 million barrier but we
can go through the history of why those projects are coming to us now and how the commission presidents to interpret the executive derivative derivative >> commissioner moore. >> i'm prepared to continue this because i'm searching for metrics by which we can sit here and meet the larger objectives it's not about this particular family living in 75 hundred square foot or not but what we use to guide us to look at the merging of units we're getting favorite away from this by reducing the number of homes by thirty thousand this is distracting and i